IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

HOWARD BODDIE, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-CV-227 

 Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

RON O’BRIEN, et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

On May 14, 2012, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that

this action be dismissed because all defendants are immune, either from

suit or from liability for monetary damages, i.e., the only form of

relief sought in the action. Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 12. 

This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s objections to that

recommendation. Objection, Doc. No. 14. For the reasons that follow,

plaintiff’s objections are DENIED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

The Complaint, Doc. No. 11, names as defendants the State of Ohio,

a state court trial judge and the Franklin County Prosecutor; the

Complaint also refers to two unnamed Assistant County Prosecutors. 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, seeks monetary damages in connection with

a criminal prosecution which, plaintiff alleges, violated plaintiff’s

rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States

Constitution. “This unconstitutional prosecution is the basis of this

action.” Objection, p. 4. The Magistrate Judge reasoned, inter alia,

that the defendant prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for

Case: 2:12-cv-00227-ALM-NMK Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/16/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
monetary damages in this action.1 See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409

(1976). Plaintiff argues that these defendants are not entitled to

absolute immunity from liability for monetary damages because they

“failed to investigate the Double Jeopardy violations.” Objection, p.

6.2 This Court disagrees. Plaintiff’s claims against these defendants are

grounded in their decision to criminally prosecute plaintiff. This is

quintessentially a prosecutorial function for which these defendants are

entitled to absolute immunity from liability for monetary damages.

Plaintiff also urges this Court not to dismiss the case at this

early stage of the proceedings but, instead, permit plaintiff to conduct

discovery in support of his claims. However, federal law requires that,

under the circumstances presented in this action, the Court conduct an

initial screen of the complaint and sua sponte dismiss any claim that

“seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). See also 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(b)(2). The Magistrate Judge did not err in conducting that initial

screen and recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are

therefore DENIED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 12, is ADOPTED

AND AFFIRMED. This case is hereby DISMISSED.

The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT. Moreover, the Court concludes

that an appeal from the judgment entered in this action would not be

taken in good faith. See 29 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

1

The Magistrate Judge did not, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions,

consider whether any defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.

2

Plaintiff’s objections do not address the recommendation that the

claims against the State of Ohio and the state court trial judge be dismissed.

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00227-ALM-NMK Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/16/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 s/Algenon L. Marbley Algenon L. Marbley

 United States District Judge 

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00227-ALM-NMK Doc #: 15 Filed: 07/16/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>